OT: Did the NBA just open up a can of worms?
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/boot-sterling-nba-team-owners-ma…
I posted yesterday that trying to remove Donald Sterling could back fire on the NBA as Sterling won't go quietly into the night. He's always had a chip on his shoulder and if he believes he has been unfairly targeted, as I can bet he has here right or wrong, that he could possibly use a scorched earth strategy to counter the NBA's punishment. It has already been reported that Sterling told a Fox reporter that he will not sell his team
Don't think for a minute that he's the only creepy character in the NBA. The owners have to vote to have him removed. Some of those owners might want to think twice about their votes as I am betting there are stories about them that they do not want out in the public.
And certain players should also be careful. We already know that many of them aren't the most honorable, ethical or racially tolerant as we would think.
The NBA is a very seedy place.
As they say, be careful for what you wish for.
The flip side to all of this is that the NBA guarantees that Donald will get a more than fair price for his team to leave quietly. And then Magic Johnson and his billionaire white investors will have their team.
Is that really the critical difference between the two situations? It might be, we're talking about something that directly impacts a smaller subset of fans. But there were some other differences too, that made it possible then for the league to head the problem off at the pass. The fine and the apology were almost immediate, and Kobe never said anything like it again. Groups that were pressuring the league overnight were, the next day, thanking the league for its "swift and decisive action."
I don't see how the same approach could have worked here. Sterling wasn't likely to issue an apology, if he did it wouldn't be taken seriously in the face of his history, and the chances that he would overturn his entire business model and avoid embarrassing the league in the future were vanishingly small. What exactly was he going to say? "I did not mean to offend anyone. My actions over the last four decades were in the pursuit of profit only and do not reflect my attitude toward the African-American or Latino communities."
April 30th, 2014 at 10:37 AM ^
Not my perspective but its an easy tell.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:43 AM ^
Not sure why the OP is getting canned here. The NBA's grounds to make decisions like this seems like a very legitimate discussion point to me
April 30th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
His rights were not violated. You don't have to tell him he's being taped in every state. I know it would suck to be held to comments from a private convo...but maybe he shouldn't be a bigot, then? And it's not like the guy doesn't have a shady history. I can't recall a single interview in the last two days that has said he's a good guy.
And don't talk to me about free speech. He has a right to say whatever he wants...but that doesn't give him freedom from any consequences. If I walked into my job and started cussing people out, I certainly couldn't hide behind free speech to keep them from firing me.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:48 AM ^
April 30th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^
Sterling is not indefensible just because he is a bigot. Things are not that black and white. Pun intended.
April 30th, 2014 at 10:57 AM ^
Here's the point:
1. There was plenty of evidence that Sterling was a racist before this incident and the evidence was far more substantial. The NBA did nothing. The players did nothing. Guys like Doc Rivers and Chris Paul accepted millions of dollars from the guy without a word about how he had treated black people in the past.
2. Being punished for a private conversation that may have been illegally recorded is alarming and (as the title of the thread says) opens up a huge can of worms. How can the NBA do anything BUT ban people for life for any type of bigotry? Say an NBA player gets caught in public (someone records him on a smartphone) using deragatory words to describe women. Doesn't Adam Silver have to ban that player for life? And if he doesn't, does that mean he's okay with women being degraded? Or does he think that degrading women doesn't mean as much as degrading black people? What about homophobia? Anti-Semitism? Any opinion that is not PC now has to be accompanied by a lifetime ban.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:06 AM ^
I agree, but I think it will be easy for the NBA to draw a line.
I think they won't do the exact same thing to owners with a history of misogyny, homophobia, religous hatred, etc.
The reason for this is simple. The NBA has a lot of black players and fans. It could be called a predominantly black sport. That is why this action was taken and other forms of bigotry are just ignored.
It's why Ozzie Guillen can get canned in South Florida for making a comment that was favorable to Castro. That is why professional golfers like Fuzzy Zoeller can mock minorities. Golf is a mainly white sport. That is why NASCAR drivers can be openly derogatory about women and Danica Patrick. It is a mainly white male sport.
This has little to do with what is "just" for a bigot and everything to do with money.
Shocking, I know.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:15 AM ^
You could be right, but I'm not so sure. I would imagine if a player got caught saying something homophobic at this point, there would now be hell to pay, especially after this. The NBA also has a lot of fans of all backgrounds. Say a player said something derogatory that is offensive toward the Asian community. Does Silver risk a backlash from the huge and growing Asian market by not slapping a lifetime ban down on the player in question? Now that people have seen what happens when enough pressure is applied, I think Silver's hand could be forced in the future.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
I don't think that would be the case though. I bet they find a way to let anything go, unless it hurts the bottom line.
But should you be punished, if you were at your own home cussing people you work alongside (maybe your boss) because you were pissed off at them (for whatever reason), and a fellow emplyoee you thought was on your side unknowingly recorded the conversation and brought it to "bossess" attention?
April 30th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
Worms everywhere.
Sterling's idiocy aside, a man's personal thoughts and beliefs were leaked to public in an unauthorized manner. Fined $2.5 million for it and banned from his team.
Hell of a slippery slope. Sooooo, what do we do, as a moral society, about racist/homophobic lyrics in rap songs? I use rap as an example due to its frequent use of said lyrics....it would apply to all forms of thoughts/speech/expressions. Those are public comments shared openly and for profit. Do we boycott...seize funds from sales? What is the difference? How much hypocricy is involved here.
Our society is extremely biased in how we address bias. Perhaps one day we will reach a level where we react to situations like this is a measured, uniform and non-sensational manner. Until then, cue the Sharptons and Limbaughs of the world.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:25 PM ^
What does rap have anything to do with this? NWA deosn't own an NBA franchise.
I don't know why everything thinks this was a moral decision made by Adam Silver. It was not. it was a business decision. If Sterling would have stayed quietly racist, no one would have cared. But because it got out, he got in trouble. This happens in business all the time with people in power - do what you do on your own time, but if it gets out, you're gone.
It's very possible Sterling had been warned about this already. "I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't go public and start affecting your/our business." But now it got out, boycotts were ready, sponsors had bailed, so the NBA had to act.
I didn't take from Silver's speech that his overall point was "racism is bad." It was "owners who make the NBA look bad are bad." So the punishment was made.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:51 PM ^
You're not getting it: The outcry from the media and the public the next time anything like this appears from anybody in the league is going to be severe. If a player calls someone a "faggot", then its going to be everywhere and the media is going to demand that Silver banish the player from the league because Silver had just demonstrated that the NBA has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to bigotry. If he doesn't do so, the party line will be that he doesn't take homophobia seriously. A fine of $75,000 isn't going to cut it.
He may have made a business decision, but his reaction just created major headaches down the road.
She was suspended and remained on as a minority partner. So not the same thing.
Entirely different era in terms of media and reaction time.
The world is moving fast old man.
The mere fact that most of us refer delicately to "the N word" but have no such queasiness about using the word "faggot" is evidence that society does not yet equate racial discrimination with sexual orientation discrimination. We are moving in that direction, but not there quite yet. No one publicly comes to the defense of someone who makes blatantly racist comments. The same is not (yet) true of those making homophobic comments.
Westward, this is not really directed to you nor is it a criticism of your use of the word (which I have now also used); just an observation about this thread and this topic more generally that I thought of after reading your post.
Here is the point. Where is the line drawn? If you can't see the parallel then you are viewing this incident in a vacuum.
BTW: Jay-Z is co-owner of a franchise. Have you researched some the shit he says? The only difference is that Sterling doesn't pal around with the POTUS.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
didn't bother to know the details of how Sterling got caught with the recordings. Sterling knew about it and gave consent. He then ask her to play it again just to remember what he said. That is, in effect, gave his ex-girlfriend consent to release the recordings out to the public. It's his own damn fault for giving her consent in the first place.
Whereas with other athletes like Kobe who said slurs during games happened in the heat of the moment. They're far different than Sterling who has a history of being a racist.
Adam Silver are confident that he will get unanimous votes from the owners before moving forward with a lifetime ban and force sell of the franchise. MLB did it with Marge Schott and Schott faded into obscurity. NBA knew that the franchise value would go down if Sterling continues to be the owner. Players and coaches won't play for him. Sponsors won't associate with the LAC. This is why the NBA had to act fast after a throughout investigation.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:28 AM ^
The people saying that he consented to these recordings are all associated with Stiviano, so I'm not sure if that's the most reliable source.
I'm glad the heat of the moment is an okay time to be hateful for so many right-thinking people.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
I suppose what I don't understand is why all the pro leagues have guys convicted of DUIs, drug charges, violent crimes, implicated in murders, etc. and they come right back but a guy makes racist comments in private and he is banned for life.
I understand his comments are deplorable, but is it really worthy of a lifetime ban when all these other clowns are still allowed to play? I don't think so unless you make DUI a lifetime ban as well.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
April 30th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
The L.A. chapter of the NCAAP wanted cash money. It has always been about the money. If the NCAAP really did their job, they'd be front and center in inner cities trying to get their own to stop killing each other, aborting in their babies in masses and trying to find solutions so that black children have a mom and a DAD instead of just a mom or grand ma. But those are things they have decided to ignore.
Donald Sterling is an easy target. But ridding him won't fix the real problems that affect the black community and white racism isn't one of them.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
Tell us more about the priorities of the NAACP. When was the last time you went to a meeting?
Also, when did white racism stop affecting blacks in America? Was it Monday? I missed that.
Obama's president, racism is over! Didn't you get the memo?
*MISSION ACCOMPLISHED*
April 30th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
The business world does not care about rights to free speech. It cares about making money. That is what everyone’s job in private for profit business is. Sterling’s comment enraged a significant portion of the NBA’s customers, hurt relations with the players union and was scaring off advertisers in addition to distracting attention from the playoffs.
Do you really expect the owners to let their league suffer because Sterling was recorded in what may have been an illegal way? In most states you can fire a person for any reason – with a few exceptions, none of which include anything related to your speech. In the private business world saying things that offend your customers and hurt your business is going to get you fired. If you are an owner of the business it will probably cause you to lose the business or at least harm it significantly.
Is this really a bad thing? What’s the alternative? People are free to spend their money how they see fit. If an owner of a business or a key employee holds positions that its customers find offensive they won’t spend money there and the business will be harmed. Most businesses will respond to this by firing the person with the offensive views. Even some CEO’s and businesses founders have been forced out in situations like this.
We can debate if it’s good for society that private beliefs at odds with the norm will cost you your job/business but were not going to change it through legal measures. You’re free to say and think whatever you want but there are consequences related to this if these statement/beliefs are too far outside the mainstream and society chooses to not do business with you. There is lots of money to be made running or working for large businesses that sell products and services to the public at large. At the same time you do give up some of your freedom once your big enough for the public to notice you.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:51 AM ^
is that the owners are all going to support kicking him out of the league, because not doing so would be stupid. then, they're going to get all this support from the media for doing it, even though they have no real choice other than to do that.
meanwhile, many of them are probably equally as racist and have done equally deplorable things to make their billions (i'd assume the net's owner is the shadiest) but they will use this situation as evidence that they are morally upstanding.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:08 PM ^
Before the straw men come out, I'm not defending sterling, just noticing the direction this is heading.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
is that the nba had the opportunity to punish donald sterling way back in 2009 when details of his housing discrimination settlement were leaked, showing that not only is he a bigot's bigot, but that those bigoted beliefs have affected his business decisions.
instead, people like mark jackson say terrrrrrrrribly idiotic things like "hey man, how a man runs his business is his own perogative." lolololol and he has the balls to be offended by this shit now?! gtfo.
society's intelligence swings and misses at soft toss, but is quick to point out that it smashes homeruns off a tee.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
This. Exactly this.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:31 PM ^
Try holding a different opinion on many college campuses and see what happens.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:36 PM ^
That phrase makes Sterling's beliefs seem innocuous, which they almost certainly were not. It's hard to imagine that the racist mindset he demonstrated in the recording didn't seep into his role as, say, a landlord.
It's one thing if I privately question the existence of God or embrace a flying spaghetti monster as my god. Neither of those things in and of themselves is likely to effect my actions in the public square. This is not so with a belief that blacks and whites shouldn't mix.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
Let's ban him immediately!
rappers to be culpable for their words. problem is that most of them are women and have no real power. people like you only care when it can be used to feign interest and call out a hypocrisy you have no interest in.
I would absolutely have asked about that before letting him buy a team. Being behind the NBA's decision to ban Sterling =/= thinking Jay-Z is a great candidate for team ownership.
need to be slowly coddled toward their decisions.
let's also be clear that not everything bad a person does is held in the same light by society. racism>homophobia>>>>>>>>sexism
I didn't say the NBA should stop.
i hate the slippery slope argument as a principle, because you'd like to be optimistic that you can take everything on a case-by-case basis. however, people make such a hullaballoo pointing out hypocrisies they don't actually care about just for the sake of feigning moral indignation, and then the media gets involved, and then the masses get convinced that the slope is too slippery, and settle on complacency.
I also think he's underestimating how many people wouldn' t mind the NBA taking a long look at other people - especially owners - who have displayed chauvinistic or bigoted beliefs. I don't have anyone in mind, but if, say, the owner of the Spurs has a terrible record with hiring and/or harassing female employees, then I'm sure many people would have no problem taking him to task too.
the media missed the ball way back when firing sterling was relevant, and now is overhyping this whole situation.
my issue is that it isn't a slippery slope issue, it's just that the media blows.
I don't listen to his music, and I know nothing of his business practices. But, as I said, I certainly would have inquired into his attitudes toward female employees (or employees belonging to any other group whom he's disparaged, if there are any) before voting to let him into the NBA. And I would be in favor of getting rid of him if there is proof that he said in a candid moment something about women (or whomever) along the lines of what Sterling said.